6 ms·

I constantly hear people saying we're going to make ourselves extinct, but have you ever stopped to think about how hard that is? We're the most adaptable spec

by eloff 9y ago

I constantly hear people saying we're going to make ourselves extinct, but have you ever stopped to think about how hard that is? We're the most adaptable species ever to live on this planet . There are 8 billion of us on every continent except Antarctica, and we've found ways to codify and share our collective knowledge. Climate disasters, widespread thermonuclear wars, etc would be horrifying and would likely kill a great many or even a majority of humans. But even that wouldn't do much more than slow us down a few hundred years. Even an a massive impact from space on the scale of the Chicxulub impact would kill off most people, and collapse civilization - but we'd rise again in less than a thousand years. It's very hard to think of a scenario that would actually end us. One thing I've speculated about is maybe we unlock some awful power that we can't control. For example, if it were easy for anybody to distill antimatter in their garage in large quantities. Because there are always going to be those among us who want to burn it all down and who would destroy everything if they could. In a hypothetical world where terrorists and rampagers attacked with kilograms of antimatter, that might make it difficult to maintain a level of civilization for long periods of time.

senorjazz 9y ago
> but we'd rise again in less than a thousand years. Would we though? I am not so sure starting from scratch is going to possible. For example, all the easy oil is gone. All the easy mining, is gone. We can get at it because we have the technology. If 99% of the human species was wiped out, yes we would continue to exist, but I would not expect many great civilisations to flourish again
- ajross 9y ago
  The bit about energy sources is true, though a little spun. It's true that oil is gone. Coal is still plentiful, even at the surface. And the "hole" in industrial development where we depended on oil specifically has been less than 100 years or so, and already seems to be reaching its end. It's not impossible to imagine a future society skipping liquid fuels (and most of aviation) and still making its way to the renewable revolution. > All the easy mining, is gone. This bit is wrong, though. You can literally walk through a demolition site and pick up rebar and aluminum by the ton. Access to a single ancient reactor would give you the equivalent of decades of mining from any single uranium site. All our city building has had the effect of concentrating easily exploitable "ore" resources, not depleting them.
  - senorjazz 9y ago
    I was probably over generalising (and I really have no idea about this tbh). But I would still think a lot of the easy mining is gone. >Access to a single ancient reactor would give you the equivalent of decades of mining from any single uranium site What could is uranium to destroyed civilisation where all previous knowledge has been lost? I don't think future post civilisation peoples are going to be reconstructing a nuclear reactor from wood. >You can literally walk through a demolition site and pick up rebar and aluminum by the ton Post civilisation people are not going to have much use for demolished materials. Yes with modern technology we could reuse it. But how will they use it? I've seen a build demolished in the third world. People came and got the pieces of rebar true, hammered the concrete off it, but only to sell, not to use. I don't really think in a post civ world it would be of much use > It's not impossible to imagine a future society skipping liquid fuels (and most of aviation) and still making its way to the renewable revolution. Impossible? Perhaps not, but still very very unlikely. For decades after the event, survival will be all encompassing. Knowledge will pretty much have disappeared. You talk about skipping liquid fuels and aviation and going straight to renewables. First people will need to invent electricity again - everything will need to be "invented" again from a much weaker starting point. I just don't see it happening. Much more probable it is the end of human civilisations / humans as the dominant species on this planet
    - ajross 9y ago
      > But I would still think a lot of the easy mining is gone. Again, you have completely lost me. Can you explain again why you think it's easier to dig up and smelt natural iron ores (or copper, or whatever) than it is to find an old rusty engine block or electric motor and just use that? Civilization needs metal to develop, in this example, not "mining". And ours has already done the mining!
    - meric 9y ago
      We don't need mining - The metal in junk yards and recycling centres are a lot easier to access than building a mine in the middle of nowhere going underground 50 to 100 metres. The only reason we do mine and need new metal is because metal from junkyards and recycling centres are needed as well, and all existing metal is already being used. If most humans die off then the existing metal are available for reuse. And it's as easy as heating it up past melting point and molding it into the right shape; There might be ways to do that optimally but in the case where plentiful resources are available compared to human capital, it should suffice. The oil is gone, but coal is still easy to access. We can bootstrap off a second coal industrial revolution. And every person who've been through high school knows the principles involved in generating power from coal, though might be lacking in the actual techniques. > but only to sell, not to use You've proved there's buyers who would find a use for it.
- eloff 9y ago
  The knowledge won't all die with us. And we will be quick to reverse engineer and reinvent things again. We don't need oil, we've got coal, hydro, wind, and solar (both concentrated solar and solar panels), and we have biofuels. With most humans dead, arable land won't be in short supply.
freeflight 9y ago
> We're the most adaptable species ever to live on this planet. I'm not sure we've been around long enough for such a bold claim. Afaik there's plenty of life on Earth that outdates our existence by magnitudes.
- eloff 9y ago
  It's got nothing to do with how long a species has been around. But no species survives in such a wide range of climates and habitats as humans.
  - pisky 9y ago
    I've probably missed something obvious here, but what about Tardigrades and bacteria?
  - freeflight 9y ago
    > It's got nothing to do with how long a species has been around. If you are talking about species to "ever live on this planet", then how long a species has been around being a pretty big factor in determining how adaptable a species is. And in that regard, homo sapiens is rather a newcomer. Even our ancestors have only been around for a meager six million years. While other species, many of them oceanic, have been around for hundreds of millions of years like sponges (580 million years) Jelly Fish (550 million years). Cyanobacterias are actually the oldest known living system in the world, originating 2.8 billion years ago, technically the oldest life on earth. Compared to those, humanities existence is literally just a second on the clock of Earths history.
Retra 9y ago
The problem with us is our size. We're one of the biggest animals, and that means we're particularly vulnerable to ecosystem collapse.

by eloff 9y ago

senorjazz 9y ago

> but we'd rise again in less than a thousand years. Would we though? I am not so sure starting from scratch is going to possible. For example, all the easy oil is gone. All the easy mining, is gone. We can get at it because we have the technology. If 99% of the human species was wiped out, yes we would continue to exist, but I would not expect many great civilisations to flourish again

ajross 9y ago
The bit about energy sources is true, though a little spun. It's true that oil is gone. Coal is still plentiful, even at the surface. And the "hole" in industrial development where we depended on oil specifically has been less than 100 years or so, and already seems to be reaching its end. It's not impossible to imagine a future society skipping liquid fuels (and most of aviation) and still making its way to the renewable revolution. > All the easy mining, is gone. This bit is wrong, though. You can literally walk through a demolition site and pick up rebar and aluminum by the ton. Access to a single ancient reactor would give you the equivalent of decades of mining from any single uranium site. All our city building has had the effect of concentrating easily exploitable "ore" resources, not depleting them.
- senorjazz 9y ago
  I was probably over generalising (and I really have no idea about this tbh). But I would still think a lot of the easy mining is gone. >Access to a single ancient reactor would give you the equivalent of decades of mining from any single uranium site What could is uranium to destroyed civilisation where all previous knowledge has been lost? I don't think future post civilisation peoples are going to be reconstructing a nuclear reactor from wood. >You can literally walk through a demolition site and pick up rebar and aluminum by the ton Post civilisation people are not going to have much use for demolished materials. Yes with modern technology we could reuse it. But how will they use it? I've seen a build demolished in the third world. People came and got the pieces of rebar true, hammered the concrete off it, but only to sell, not to use. I don't really think in a post civ world it would be of much use > It's not impossible to imagine a future society skipping liquid fuels (and most of aviation) and still making its way to the renewable revolution. Impossible? Perhaps not, but still very very unlikely. For decades after the event, survival will be all encompassing. Knowledge will pretty much have disappeared. You talk about skipping liquid fuels and aviation and going straight to renewables. First people will need to invent electricity again - everything will need to be "invented" again from a much weaker starting point. I just don't see it happening. Much more probable it is the end of human civilisations / humans as the dominant species on this planet
  - ajross 9y ago
    > But I would still think a lot of the easy mining is gone. Again, you have completely lost me. Can you explain again why you think it's easier to dig up and smelt natural iron ores (or copper, or whatever) than it is to find an old rusty engine block or electric motor and just use that? Civilization needs metal to develop, in this example, not "mining". And ours has already done the mining!
  - meric 9y ago
    We don't need mining - The metal in junk yards and recycling centres are a lot easier to access than building a mine in the middle of nowhere going underground 50 to 100 metres. The only reason we do mine and need new metal is because metal from junkyards and recycling centres are needed as well, and all existing metal is already being used. If most humans die off then the existing metal are available for reuse. And it's as easy as heating it up past melting point and molding it into the right shape; There might be ways to do that optimally but in the case where plentiful resources are available compared to human capital, it should suffice. The oil is gone, but coal is still easy to access. We can bootstrap off a second coal industrial revolution. And every person who've been through high school knows the principles involved in generating power from coal, though might be lacking in the actual techniques. > but only to sell, not to use You've proved there's buyers who would find a use for it.
eloff 9y ago
The knowledge won't all die with us. And we will be quick to reverse engineer and reinvent things again. We don't need oil, we've got coal, hydro, wind, and solar (both concentrated solar and solar panels), and we have biofuels. With most humans dead, arable land won't be in short supply.

freeflight 9y ago

> We're the most adaptable species ever to live on this planet. I'm not sure we've been around long enough for such a bold claim. Afaik there's plenty of life on Earth that outdates our existence by magnitudes.

eloff 9y ago
It's got nothing to do with how long a species has been around. But no species survives in such a wide range of climates and habitats as humans.
- pisky 9y ago
  I've probably missed something obvious here, but what about Tardigrades and bacteria?
- freeflight 9y ago
  > It's got nothing to do with how long a species has been around. If you are talking about species to "ever live on this planet", then how long a species has been around being a pretty big factor in determining how adaptable a species is. And in that regard, homo sapiens is rather a newcomer. Even our ancestors have only been around for a meager six million years. While other species, many of them oceanic, have been around for hundreds of millions of years like sponges (580 million years) Jelly Fish (550 million years). Cyanobacterias are actually the oldest known living system in the world, originating 2.8 billion years ago, technically the oldest life on earth. Compared to those, humanities existence is literally just a second on the clock of Earths history.

Retra 9y ago

The problem with us is our size. We're one of the biggest animals, and that means we're particularly vulnerable to ecosystem collapse.